]]>https://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/mediation-methods/land-surveyors-association-of-washington-conference/feed0The Other Washingtonhttps://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/mediation-methods/the-other-washington
https://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/mediation-methods/the-other-washington#respondTue, 15 Nov 2016 21:23:22 +0000http://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/?p=9461Continue Reading]]>Several years ago when I was yet a “China Hand”, I would often hear those involved in Washington State politics refer to D.C. as “The Other Washington”. At the same time, people who live on the East Coast refer to “our” (local) politics as “The Other Washington”. I am quite certain that this hasn’t changed.

Now disregarding your political inclination, imagine what happens when someone gets all bent out of shape when someone from the other location will not submit to the same view. Essentially this person for the sake of maintaining the “integrity” of her self identity absolutely has to have her belief recognized as to which location is the “real Washington”… which of course also allows her to distinguish it from “The Other Washington.”

Pretty stupid … right? Quite evidently, this is a trivial discussion. But, this dichotomy can help to understand some of the zaniness attendant to boundary disputes. So let’s explore this mental construct a bit more and then draw some conclusions.

Imagine we have a person living here in Greater Seattle transplanted from D.C. and she still wants to maintain that she now lives in “The Other Washington” because naturally in her mind D.C. is “the real Washington.”

Now it would be one thing if this person went around town wearing cap and scarf of the NFL’s Washington Redskins. Though many in our state who are loyal to the Seahawks may find it “different” when she opens her mouth and talks about how she is living in “The Other Washington”, most people would probably dismiss the matter as an allowed loyalty to her version of reality. Who cares – right?

But what happens when she becomes absolutely “in your face” about this “issue?” You can be just about certain she will receive a good dose of “Seattle Nice” whereby when she goes on one of her rants people will just smile – albeit likely with a cringe – in order to appease her rather strident view. Yet here, they will do their best to just give this person plenty of space.

Now that is the critical point. Because this person is not challenged on her (locally) out of place perceptions, she has been given more space … i.e. a vacuum.

Here, please remember that “nature abhors a vacuum.” So, this oddball likely becomes increasingly expansive and perhaps expressive in her view because she is not self-limiting and her mental boundaries are rarely if ever challenged … its just not worth it.

Unfortunately for you, this person now moves in next to you and gets it in her head that she is entitled to land which the majority of people – i.e. both jury and judge – are highly unlikely to [assist to] determine as hers.

The jury isn’t disinclined to grant her the land because she disregards normal convention. No, instead the jury is simply assisting the court to determine the facts and afterward the judge determines how those facts will fall into place with respect to the law.

Remember though, this person fails to recognize bounds and has not been challenged for her transgression of them for quite some time because of the space given to her.

Question #1: Do you think she will use rational faculties when presented with law and fact?

Answer: NO!

You are likely in for one heck of a confrontation in which her patterns of thought must be interrupted and scrambled before she will begrudging relent to have her physical boundaries properly bound.

If money were no object, having the court drop its gavel to interrupt her “regularly scheduled program” might be completely satisfactory.

But, with the exception of extraordinarily wealthy individuals, money is indeed an object.

Question #2: What is the best answer for anyone who isn’t an extraordinarily wealthy individual involved in an impossible situation like this?

Answer: Do everything you can to get the matter to mediation.

Now, there are three types of mediation approaches: (1) facilitative; (2) evaluative; and (3) transformative.

Determining which of these three approaches to pursue is perhaps the most important determination when seeking to bring a boundary dispute to resolve.

If wanting help evaluating your boundary dispute and determining the best process and strategy to attempt to bring resolution to it, please answer less than a dozen questions by contacting Justice Smiles [HERE].

]]>https://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/mediation-methods/the-other-washington/feed0God’s Miraculous Conversation with Jameshttps://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/uncategorized/gods-miraculous-conversation-with-james
https://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/uncategorized/gods-miraculous-conversation-with-james#respondWed, 02 Mar 2016 21:13:39 +0000http://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/?p=9333Continue Reading]]>After yesterday’s blog post in which the featured image had David Bowie as Hamlet turning the skull to his audience, I determined to commit myself to referencing his artistry with respect to boundary disputes this month. To this end my initial thought was to conduct analysis of the Super Tuesday results and what it all means especially with respect to Trump going beyond proper boundaries with his Jersey Boy Chris Christie in pursuit of – drumroll please … Fame.

However, I’ll let that go at present because I note a trickle of new comments are yet dribbling in at the particular Survey Connect site to which I have been referencing. See [HERE]. Towards the end of that site there appeared to have been an exhortation by “billvhill” in which similar to Rodney King he essentially queries: ‘Can’t we all just get along.” The ‘Pleas’ express language – “I thought the purpose of this site was for the exchange of ideas, opinions, and knowledge, not to attack other members” – also appears to request continued meaningful conversation.

Unfortunately, the return appears likely – though perhaps not certainly – to have been a rebuke designed to score points instead of to indicate a principle by “James Fleming”. Specifically, he posted a picture of Spock indicating [to billvhill] “SO … YOU’RE NEW TO THE INTERNET, AREN’T YOU?”

Question: What is the principle conundrum?

Answer (by reframing the question to): How do you enter in and participate in a public discourse in an effort to learn by an exchange amongst peers, WHILE at the same time being sufficiently respectful that principles are not allowed such dominant force as to crush people’s willingness to engage in exchange because it may be hurtful to the subjective – i.e. feelings?

James Fleming cleverly seeks to push this hard aside by referencing a quote in Pulp Fiction.

Let’s put that quote up again and then instead of under the microscope, let’s pull back and look at it with a macroscopic view. So, first the quote …

VERN
So if you’re quitting the life, what’ll you do?
JAMES
That’s what I’ve been sitting here contemplating. First, I’m gonna deliver this survey to Marsellus. Then, basically, I’m gonna walk the earth.
VERN
What do you mean, walk the earth?
JAMES
You know, like Caine in “KUNG FU.” Just walk from town to town, meet people, get in adventures.
VERN
How long do you intend to walk the earth?
JAMES
Until God puts me where he want me to be.
VERN
What if he never does?
JAMES
If it takes forever, I’ll wait forever.
VERN
So you decided to be a bum?
JAMES
I’ll just be James, Vern – no more, no less.
VERN
No James, you’re gonna be like those pieces of s#&t out there who beg for change. They walk around like a bunch of f#@$in’ zombies, they sleep in garbage bins, they eat what I throw away, and dogs piss on ’em. They got a word for ’em, they’re called bums. And without a job, residence, or legal tender, that’s what you’re gonna be – a f#@$in’ bum!
JAMES
Look my friend, this is just where me and you differ –
VERN
– what happened was peculiar – no doubt about it – but it wasn’t water into wine.
JAMES
All shapes and sizes, Vern.
VERN
Stop f#@$in’ talkin’ like that!
JAMES
If you find my answers frightening, Vern, you should cease askin’ scary questions. [1]

All appears well and good, right? Yea, OK … Yet, I would suggest that everyone note this quote is only a portion of the second half of the dialogue that Vern and James are having in the restaurant. If we want to be faithful as to the “boundary” to which they are speaking we should first go to the scene showing the miracle to which has James realizing God has intervened. You will recall that James puts it upon himself to quote Ezekiel 25:17 before any execution style kill.

Notably, this is the perspective initially allowed the moviegoer of the scene which later provides the miracle. [2]

But, it’s not the only one. Later, there is a repeat from the perspective of one of the roommates of “MR. WHAT” who after beseeching “OH GOD, I DON’T WANT TO DIE”, bursts through the bathroom door with something straight from Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry gun collection and pops off as many shots as possible.

None of them hit though! [3]

Segueing now to the scene which includes the dialogue in the restaurant quoted above, we find it starts with banter typifying the stupid stuff of religion. These are the doctrines which doesn’t seem to get you any closer to God … nor your fellow man. The specific conversation is about bacon, Judaism, filth and filth’s exceptions. It is with this background in place that we can now have an intelligent conversation about the above quote. [4]

Notwithstanding the fact that he is a hit man, Travolta’s character of Vern is someone who ‘lives’ his life in fear. He’s afraid to embrace life and so is willing to simply do his job.

Yet, because he is someone who is afraid, to have his partner recognize that there is something more to life — or more particularly death — makes him especially unsettled. Essentially, he’s hoping to convince James as a proxy for himself that indeed religion – with all the heaven and hell nonsense as is ascribed to it – is bullocks.

So, the line: “If you find my answers frightening, Vern, you should cease askin’ scary questions.” while appearing to be used by James Fleming at Surveyors Connect in an attempt to mock “billvhill”, appears to me to actually self-impugn the very one who cloaks himself with its use in the post. … Of, course I MIGHT be wrong.

But I don’t think so. Why? Because Taylor Fleming has seen Pulp Fiction. And as a result of that we know that he has viewed the film’s final scene in which James “purchases” Ringo’s life.

Well boys and girls guess what? After having spent a good portion of my life on and off as a China-Hand who is now trying to draw down conflicts, that’s me … “I’m trying real hard.”

[4] See the scene of the discussion in the restaurant from which James Fleming quotes [HERE].

]]>https://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/uncategorized/gods-miraculous-conversation-with-james/feed0Evaluative Mediation Works – ALLOW IT! — Part Ihttps://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/mediation-methods/evaluative-mediation-works-allow-it-part-i
https://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/mediation-methods/evaluative-mediation-works-allow-it-part-i#respondThu, 07 Jan 2016 04:00:01 +0000http://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/?p=9255Continue Reading]]>Colin Cowherd has a great voice, a great past, and a great message: “Conflict Works – ALLOW IT! [1]. I think Colin has a great point. And yet, I am going to offer some qualifying comments. Comments which some might think are contradictory … perhaps if only to be able to view them in a frame of conflict.

At any rate, Cowherd’s statement that “Conflict Works” is best applied to zero-sum game situations. Situations in which there is usually only one person who is going to come out on top. What’s more these situations are magnified in perceived importance where there is an audience providing feedback. Why?

First, because beyond an individual’s general drive to do well at whatever goal they strive to attain, having rivals with which to conflict and compete allows comparison with which to drive them forward.

Add second a crowd of spectators and you will find that they don’t want to look like jerks not only to themselves and the competitor … but also the universe of onlookers.

Of course, there is a good chance that the difference between having a job that pays big bucks versus what – pushing a broom – keeps one motivated. [2]

But, back to the point. It is because their is an audience of onlookers who pay that gets those in the arena generally motivated. OK, I get it!

I also get that there are some who are extraordinarily motivated from inside. Alright!

Yet not all ‘conflictual universes’ are the same.

It’s one thing if you are being paid millions of dollars to scratch out yards and inches on the gridiron, but do you want to pay someone 10s and possibly 100s of thousands of dollars to scratch out this same distance with your neighbor.

That’s the conundrum people whether they are claimants of adverse possession or the holders of record title come to me about day in and day out. For most, they simply don’t have the money AND YET they are still hell-bent on preventing their neighbors from taking their land from them.

As an important aside, these positions are very often arbitrarily “assigned” by discovery that the “ground truth” is not coincident with the “line of record title” in that often times the fence is either to the left, right, or A, V, or Xs the line of record title. More importantly, both sides have valid intellectual arguments YET even more importantly – I suspect – the motivation is rooted even deeper in our animal brain.

Upshot, at the most visceral level the conflict is real and both parties find themselves precariously teetering in a state of fight or flight.

So Bobby boy, you expect us to fawn is that so? Well kind of … but then again not completely.

1. A legal fight for most just won’t work, so we kind of have to scratch that off the list … if possible.

2. The alternative – which is the reason why the cops always respond even though they can’t do much – is to get into an actual fight which may include pulling guns – needs to be scratched off the list lest the cops haul you off to jail.

3. And so this essentially leaves one last alternative – get someone who has the intestinal fortitude to go into the breach of conflict between parties – and help them work it out.

Hey, this isn’t entertainment folks!

This is a job which because it involves managing one’s own clients while at the same time seeking to talk down an opposing client(s) – who may or may not be spurred on by their own attorney(s) – requires several multiples the skills, empathy, strategy, and both intellectual and emotional quotients as those attorneys who simply run down to the courthouse at the drop of the hat.

Is litigation an option? Sure it is. And you know what also? If you are really lucky and you pay a an absolute fortune, you can indeed get yourself memorialized – provided your attorney lines up a nifty new legal angel for you – because your case might then become precedent.

Here let me ask: “Did you read yesterday’s post?” Toward the end I mentioned “the fox case” of Pierson v. Post. Note that it is the precedent, and not the fox pelt for which the whole brew ha ha was conducted that makes a lasting impression.

So, somewhat in Colin Cowherd fashion as a sportscaster who may on occasion let slip that ‘sports are a bit overrated’ type fashion say this: “Your life is short pal.”

First question: “Do you want to squander it fighting with your neighbor?”

Next question: “Do you want to do it when you can’t financially afford to have the fight?”

Final question: “If you can’t deal with the conflict now, how do you think you will feel on the verge of summary judgment knowing you could end up paying for the displeasure of your neighbor legally cleaning your clock … how about later on when you go to trial?”

“Funny thing” is this very likely … YOU CAN’T!!!

At the opposite extreme from the self-impugning, no … the self-damning, crossed-up testimony offered by Jack Nicholson’s Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men [3], you probably need someone who while trained to be “on that wall” can outmaneuver those attorney’s who take purely mercenary approach to their job. [4]

Again, while you might think you want someone like Col. Jessup on your team, folks that need to be held by a choke chain have only one direction … conflict.

Conflict is exactly the reason why Col. Jessup ended severing his “decorated” career. He simply couldn’t step back from the conflict brought to him in court and and when fired up under cross examination, he confessed!

Bottom line, those few feet or inches probably just aren’t worth allowing yourself to get so worked up that you become the One [who] Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

And yet, you still have a problem to resolve … Don’t You!!!

—

[1] See and hear the radio show from which the excerpt in Cowherd’s television plug is drawn [HERE].

[2] I want to clarify that I have the highest admiration for world class athletes. They are blessed with unique natural and mental abilities which due to absolute focus on their craft allow them ‘deep domain specialty’ which helps everyone else realize as motivational speaker Les Brown says: “It’s Possible!” … SEE [HERE]!!!

[3] See Youtube clip of “The You Can’t Handle the Truth!” video [HERE].

—

Reader Instruction: Take a moment to ponder what is the opposite extreme of a Col. Jessup. I am going to propose that it is someone who is just on the other side of the “international date line” from him. To wit – someone who though appearing very far on a flat map is actually just across the border when looking at the reality of the global sphere for which the map represents.

Author Instruction: Come back and explore the difference between application of valid authority, invalid authority, and neglect of application of proper authority within the context of Phillip Zimbardo’s The Lucifer Effect [HERE].

]]>https://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/mediation-methods/evaluative-mediation-works-allow-it-part-i/feed0[Puget] Sound Advice to Someone at the Other End of I-90 [i.e. in Massachusetts]https://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/mediation-methods/query-i-dont-suppose-you
https://www.boundarydisputelaw.com/mediation-methods/query-i-dont-suppose-you#respondSat, 07 Jun 2014 12:20:00 +0000http://eddielocal.com/2014/06/07/query-i-dont-suppose-you/Continue Reading]]>Query:

“I don’t suppose you may know of an attorney in Massachusetts with as much experience and common sense in this area as yourself?

Answer:

I’m sorry that I don’t. I would suggest you talk with a surveyor who has been trained in mediation first before handing your matter to a lawyer.

There is a distinct reason why I say this. Surveyors duty is to correctly identify title lines and MAY be able to assist a conversation with your neighbors to come to a reasonable agreement if the title lines and apparent boundary lines on the ground are not in agreement.

[Washington State] dirt litigators are paid mercenaries who are more than happy to advocate for either the title holder or the putative adverse possessor’s position.

My position – informed as a Washington licensed attorney only [and hence unable to give specific advice to you as to the law of Massachusetts] – has been that most boundary disputes are banal contests over hardly any land.

Unfortunately, my experience in Washington regarding these matters is that once a case is passed to the dirt litigators, it generally very quickly takes on a life of its own based on the “black-hole” of anger, fear, and greed – a formidable abyss which I call the death spiral.

[Note, I have completely rethought my comments about the new law of adverse possession in Washington state which is RCW 7.28.083. If Massachusetts has a similar law regarding the potential for fee shifting, I would suggest extra vigilance and circumspection. Continuing …]

Before going off the precipice and into the abyss with your neighbor, you may want to print out those too later articles and present them to your neighbor and see how your neighbor reacts.

[In doing so, please of course disclose that this information may not be fully accurate in Massachusetts as it reveals only my experience out here in Washington State.]

Perhaps your neighbor will recognize the following:

Good neighborly relationships are important;

Risks attendant to going to court are too high;

Financial costs will – if at all similar to the Seattle area – likely end up being astronomical;

Emotional costs will be too profound; and

Life is simply too short to waste on these types of trivial matters.

There are reasons why these types of matters do need to be resolved which relate to the future marketability of real property, but that can be done by a gut-wrenching and gut-splitting evisceration through the use of the courts … or, it can be done peacefully.

What’s going to be more important to you … a fleeting relationship with your attorney or a long -perhaps even one over the course of your lifetime – relationship with your neighbor?

The advice that I attempt to distill for prospective clients here in Washington State is that one should come to quick terms with their neighbors and preserve their relationship.

I think this is sound advice which I ought to be able to share in other jurisdictions too. Any challengers out there may speak up publicly.